So, what are your thoughts on abortion?

[farran34]

I do not see how it defeats the whole purpose of the debate, but I think we have each given enough commentary on our positions, and any further discussion between us on abortion will probably not make much progress.

[noissance]

I do not see how it defeats the whole purpose of the debate, but I think we have each given enough commentary on our positions, and any further discussion between us on abortion will probably not make much process.

It has made progress, I have had insight Into people who think its wrong not solely based on relegion (catholic breeding).

I summarize my view in one sentence:
Out of sight, out of mind.

[arriah]

I do not see how it defeats the whole purpose of the debate, but I think we have each given enough commentary on our positions, and any further discussion between us on abortion will probably not make much process.

Well there''s no point in a debate where someone takes the position "''m right, because I am, and it''s wrong for you to look at it in another way."

[farran34]

That is not the stance I am taking, I am criticizing your system of ethics for only paying attention to the consequences in the action. I am stating this it is pointless in debating further because I will have to make some philosophical arguments (which use logic). It seems you have no desire or much understanding on these systems of philosophy, and it would not create much progress.

@noissance
I did not state the arguments did not make progress, just that it will not make much if I continue. I also have not once argued from religion if you take notice, perhaps others have

[noissance]

@farran thats what I meant, I know you didnt argue "abortion is bad because the priest said so, " which is why I am able to respect your opinion to this degree.

[arriah]

That is not the stance I am taking, I am criticizing your system of ethics for only paying attention to the consequences in the action. I am stating this it is pointless in debating further because I will have to make some philosophical arguments (which use logic). It seems you have no desire or much understanding on these systems of philosophy, and it would not create much progress.

@noissance
I did not state the arguments did not make progress, just that it will not make much if I continue. I also have not once argued from religion if you take notice, perhaps others have

Well you kind of knew that alredy since this whole debate was supposed to be objective.

So far, we have a long ass list of reasons for pro-choice

Arguments for pro-life (STILL, even after our this whole thread):
It''s wrong because it just is.

[farran34]

the philosophy I would debate is objective, but it is pointless to debate this with you. I still think my argument is valid, it just has some potential problems pertaining to things like stem-cells or cloning, which is a different topic all in it-self. Also from that argument I was arguing from a deontolgoist standpoint, and I have been opposed to consequentialism this whole debate. Since your argument is from consequentialism, and I reject consequentialism as being right, your argument does not persuade me. You can state your argument is objective, but you would need to argue for why consequences matter more than the action itself in order for it to be objective. Again this conversation will never happen so I will not continue arguing on it or responding.

[farran34]

@farran thats what I meant, I know you didnt argue "abortion is bad because the priest said so, " which is why I am able to respect your opinion to this degree.

I apologize then, I misunderstood you. You may not agree with me, and I may not agree with you, but if we can at least respect each other and their opinion (whether or not it is right) this conversation has had some level of worth.

[arriah]

the philosophy I would debate is objective, but it is pointless to debate this with you. I still think my argument is valid, it just has some potential problems pertaining to things like stem-cells or cloning, which is a different topic all in it-self. Also from that argument I was arguing from a deontolgoist standpoint, and I have been opposed to consequentialism this whole debate. Since your argument is from consequentialism, and I reject consequentialism as being right, your argument does not persuade me. You can state your argument is objective, but you would need to argue for why consequences matter more than the action itself in order for it to be objective. Again this conversation will never happen so I will not continue arguing on it or responding.

Ok but how do you debate something without considering it''s consequences.

Also, all of your points were pretty much discredited. So please list points that you think makes abortion wrong other than fetuses are people and it''s just wrong

[farran34]

For the sake of explaining it to you and not looking to further argue I will copy and paste basic descriptions of deontology, and give an example of a theory you could argue from with it:


Deontology (or Deontological Ethics) is an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (Consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor (Virtue Ethics).

Thus, to a Deontologist, whether a situation is good or bad depends on whether the action that brought it about was right or wrong. What makes a choice "right" is its conformity with a moral norm: Right takes priority over Good. For example, if someone proposed to kill everyone currently living on land that could not support agriculture in order to bring about a world without starvation, a Deontologist would argue that this world without starvation was a bad state of affairs because of the way in which it was brought about. A Consequentialist would (or could) argue that the final state of affairs justified the drastic action. A Virtue Ethicist would concern himself with neither, but would look at whether the perpetrator acted in accordance with worthy virtues.

Possible system of deonotology:
Pluralistic Deontology is a description of the deontological ethics propounded by W.D. Ross (1877 - 1971). He argues that there are seven prima facie duties which need to be taken into consideration when deciding which duty should be acted upon:

Duty of beneficence (to help other people to increase their pleasure, improve their character, etc).
Duty of non-maleficence (to avoid harming other people).
Duty of justice (to ensure people get what they deserve).
Duty of self-improvement (to improve ourselves).
Duty of reparation (to recompense someone if you have acted wrongly towards them).
Duty of gratitude (to benefit people who have benefited us).
Duty of promise-keeping (to act according to explicit and implicit promises, including the implicit promise to tell the truth).
In some circumstances, there may be clashes or conflicts between these duties and a decision must be made whereby one duty may "trump" another, although there are no hard and fast rules and no fixed order of significance.

[arriah]

For the sake of explaining it to you and not looking to further argue I will copy and paste basic descriptions of deontology, and give an example of a theory you could argue from with it:


Deontology (or Deontological Ethics) is an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (Consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor (Virtue Ethics).

Thus, to a Deontologist, whether a situation is good or bad depends on whether the action that brought it about was right or wrong. What makes a choice "right" is its conformity with a moral norm: Right takes priority over Good. For example, if someone proposed to kill everyone currently living on land that could not support agriculture in order to bring about a world without starvation, a Deontologist would argue that this world without starvation was a bad state of affairs because of the way in which it was brought about. A Consequentialist would (or could) argue that the final state of affairs justified the drastic action. A Virtue Ethicist would concern himself with neither, but would look at whether the perpetrator acted in accordance with worthy virtues.

Possible system of deonotology:
Pluralistic Deontology is a description of the deontological ethics propounded by W.D. Ross (1877 - 1971). He argues that there are seven prima facie duties which need to be taken into consideration when deciding which duty should be acted upon:

Duty of beneficence (to help other people to increase their pleasure, improve their character, etc).
Duty of non-maleficence (to avoid harming other people).
Duty of justice (to ensure people get what they deserve).
Duty of self-improvement (to improve ourselves).
Duty of reparation (to recompense someone if you have acted wrongly towards them).
Duty of gratitude (to benefit people who have benefited us).
Duty of promise-keeping (to act according to explicit and implicit promises, including the implicit promise to tell the truth).
In some circumstances, there may be clashes or conflicts between these duties and a decision must be made whereby one duty may "trump" another, although there are no hard and fast rules and no fixed order of significance.

How do they decide on the moral norm? For example, infanticide used to be totally fine in some cultures.

[arriah]

For the sake of explaining it to you and not looking to further argue I will copy and paste basic descriptions of deontology, and give an example of a theory you could argue from with it:


Deontology (or Deontological Ethics) is an approach to Ethics that focuses on the rightness or wrongness of actions themselves, as opposed to the rightness or wrongness of the consequences of those actions (Consequentialism) or to the character and habits of the actor (Virtue Ethics).

Thus, to a Deontologist, whether a situation is good or bad depends on whether the action that brought it about was right or wrong. What makes a choice "right" is its conformity with a moral norm: Right takes priority over Good. For example, if someone proposed to kill everyone currently living on land that could not support agriculture in order to bring about a world without starvation, a Deontologist would argue that this world without starvation was a bad state of affairs because of the way in which it was brought about. A Consequentialist would (or could) argue that the final state of affairs justified the drastic action. A Virtue Ethicist would concern himself with neither, but would look at whether the perpetrator acted in accordance with worthy virtues.

Possible system of deonotology:
Pluralistic Deontology is a description of the deontological ethics propounded by W.D. Ross (1877 - 1971). He argues that there are seven prima facie duties which need to be taken into consideration when deciding which duty should be acted upon:

Duty of beneficence (to help other people to increase their pleasure, improve their character, etc).
Duty of non-maleficence (to avoid harming other people).
Duty of justice (to ensure people get what they deserve).
Duty of self-improvement (to improve ourselves).
Duty of reparation (to recompense someone if you have acted wrongly towards them).
Duty of gratitude (to benefit people who have benefited us).
Duty of promise-keeping (to act according to explicit and implicit promises, including the implicit promise to tell the truth).
In some circumstances, there may be clashes or conflicts between these duties and a decision must be made whereby one duty may "trump" another, although there are no hard and fast rules and no fixed order of significance.

How do they decide on the moral norm? For example, infanticide used to be totally fine in some cultures.

Also, would a deontologist argue that killing someone else in self defense is wrong?

[arkz]

Ive seen a lot of biological parents treat their children like an unwanted nuisance.

Hm, I wonder where that was. Maybe the mystery of metis misogyny has been solved?

[color=e61919]User was temporarily suspended for this post (and countless others, after repeated warnings from multiple staff members).[/color]

[arriah]

Ive seen a lot of biological parents treat their children like an unwanted nuisance.

Hm, I wonder where that was. Maybe the mystery of metis misogyny has been solved?

Wtf

[noissance]

Ive seen a lot of biological parents treat their children like an unwanted nuisance.

Hm, I wonder where that was. Maybe the mystery of metis misogyny has been solved?

Metis is a misogonyst? That explains a lot...

[arriah]

Hm, I wonder where that was. Maybe the mystery of metis misogyny has been solved?

Metis is a misogonyst? That explains a lot...

You have been here since the other thread! You KNOW this!

[noissance]

Metis is a misogonyst? That explains a lot...

You have been here since the other thread! You KNOW this!

I thought he was a relegious cuckoo at first then realized he was atheist, but I dint know he h8s women.

On a sidenote, I declare myself a feminist.

[arriah]

You have been here since the other thread! You KNOW this!

I thought he was a relegious cuckoo at first then realized he was atheist, but I dint know he h8s women.

On a sidenote, I declare myself a feminist.

Feminism ftw ^^

[Metis]

If one is going to argue that abortion is ethical because the fetus is not self-aware then its hard to say infanticide, up to the age of self-awareness, would not also be ethical. However, as I stated some posts ago, there is considerable variation as to when humans become self-aware and its even possible that some become so in utero.

What do you mean by self-aware? I found this definition of self-awareness and have trouble believing most new-born babies would have this: "Self-awareness is a psychological state in which people are aware of their traits, feelings and behaviour. Alternately, it can be defined as the realization of oneself as an individual entity."

I also found most sources suggesting around 18 months it is usual for people to begin to become self-aware, but perhaps there is evidence suggesting it at a younger age also.

My question is though if we define one gaining humanity when they reach self-awareness, we could then argue that people in vegetative states have completely lost their humanity since their are not self-aware, as arriah used as a counter to me earlier.

Also, assuming a baby is not self-aware (still debatable maybe from your post, but for this lets assume), wouldnt this mean a chimpanzees are more human than a baby? I think most would value the life of their baby over that of a chimpanzee.

If nothing else, one can take the age of the first memories as that which self-awareness begins. Like I said, there is good evidence that at least a few individuals have memories from the day they are born. I can remember nearly every day since I was about 14 months old except for the day that I fell and bashed my head, knocking myself out. I also have vague memories of being carried up some steps onto an airplane. Ive never been on a plane that had external side steps, other than small ones and these were large. All the civilian planes Ive been on loaded from the gate and the military ones from the rear ramp. I think that this is a memory from when I came back from Germany as a baby. But your sources are correct in stating that the mode is probably closer to 18 months.

Mature great apes, dolphins, gray parrots and elephants at least are more self-aware than human babies. One could argue that they were in some ways have the characteristics of "people." Most mothers, however, would save a human baby over a self-aware adult entity purely by instinct. Maternal instinct is strong, in many cases stronger than the predatory instinct. Check out the video below.

[video src="https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=hfBjKOGlFkw"][/video]

[arriah]

How do they decide on the moral norm? For example, infanticide used to be totally fine in some cultures.

Also, would a deontologist argue that killing someone else in self defense is wrong?

The more I think about this the more ridiculous it sounds. Are you sure this is an accurate description?

[Sgt_ROFLCopter]

Furthermore, most potential mutations have never been observed.

Ive never worked with human genetics but Im pretty sure that I once observed a mutation in a population of rodents because it wasnt present in the fairly large sample I collected in one year but was there in one juvenile individual from the sample I collected the following year. Im pretty sure that it didnt come in via gene flow from surrounding populations either as none of them showed any heterozygosity at that locus.

Which is one mutation out of all of the possible base pairs that could have mutated.

[Metis]

Ive seen a lot of biological parents treat their children like an unwanted nuisance.

Hm, I wonder where that was. Maybe the mystery of metis misogyny has been solved?

Once again with the labels and insults, give it a break will you. If you have never seen biological parents ignore or even mistreat their children than you have led a sheltered, isolated life. Police and EMS are routinely called to assist social services with abused and neglected children. I saw a lot of this in EMS and even more when I managed low-income housing.

[Mr. Pecksniff]

Lets see if we can get this thread locked as well.

@arriah your gay

My gay what???

I anticipated that response.

Your gay, faggot.

User was warned for this post.

[Metis]

My gay what???

I anticipated that response.

Your gay, faggot.

Isnt that a tautology? If you want to make it clear that you are insulting someone then you should use the proper words and grammar. However, its best not to insult someone in the first place.

[arriah]

My gay what???

I anticipated that response.

Your gay, faggot.

My gay, faggot?

Really, though, with the homophobic slurs?